As far as story, characters, and themes go, I find the PT is way, WAY more interesting and dynamic than the OT by it's very nature.
As far as actual execution, artistic skill, and movie going experience go, the OT is way, WAY superior to the PT.
I think part of what went against the PT was that because the story, characters, and themes were so much more complex and dynamic, it required a writer and director of far superior skill than what the OT required. Lucas had been so out of practice in both of those areas that he actually went the other way in terms of quality in these fields.
I'm hoping the ST will be top notch in story, characters and themes as well as execution, artistic skill and movie going experience. But if anything need be sacrificed, please don't let it be the quality of the movie going experience. The whole point of movies is to commune with your fellow humans, not to appreciate them at home by oneself.

I will totally agree with you that the PT story in theory is much more complex and IS the more interesting story if executed right.

I'm kind of shocked that any 38% of people prefer the prequels over the originals. There are so many objectively bad choices in the PT that I just don't really get it. Whenever I see someone that says they prefer the PTs I almost instantly roll my eyes, and I can't even help it. I just assume they were people who saw those films first and therefore have this nostalgic connection to them. That is how unbelievable it is to me that someone can prefer a film with characters that aren't actually characters at all to films with some of the most intricate, and interesting characters in film history.

Or maybe, perhaps, people just like the PT. Flaws and all. Maybe, perhaps, they don't see the issues as flaws. Maybe, some people just happen to like something different from others. To say it boggles the mind is acknowledging that you have a limited view on what people like and don't like. Nostalgia has nothing more to do it, than it does with the OT. This gets me. "Oh, I hate it that must mean everyone else hates it." No it doesn't.

PiettsHat said:

Do you remember how Luke, after learning the truth about his father, closed his eyes as if in pain and asked "Ben, why didn't you tell me?" I want a moment like that for Leia -- she doesn't even have to say anything, just give us a moment where she looks as though she's wrung out and trying to hold it together.

Or she could be actually holding it together, and then let go later.

PiettsHat said:

don't know what you're talking about. Vader didn't torture Han, Chewie and Leia because of what happened in ANH -- he tortured them to draw Luke out of hiding. Obi-Wan says so -- that it is Luke and his abilities that the Emperor wants and that is why his friends are made to suffer. Honestly, I think the reason we didn't see Leia being tortured is because she's a woman. That's just my feelings on the subject and I have no proof to back it up, but I get the feeling that there was a concern that the audience would be put off by seeing Leia's torture. Even in ANH, they never showed this although they do show Han and Chewie (and we hear them scream).

I didn't say that was the only reason.

PiettsHat said:

Plus, when Leia comes in, she seems well aware of what has happened to Han, asking him "Why are they doing this?" She obviously knows what happened to Han because the same thing happened to her.

Not really. She knows that Han is being tortured because she could hear it, while she was allowed to change clothes. Doesn't mean it happened to her.

PiettsHat said:

Plus, the script describes her looking, like Han, worse for wear.

Which is fine, but she doesn't look it in the film. Not like Han did. You would think that Kershner would have done a better job implying it with Leia.

PiettsHat said:

I still don't see how Luke would know it's Vader. There's thousands of people on the Death Star (it's the size of a moon, so there might even be hundreds of thousands or millions) and Luke doesn't see the start of the pursuit. He's busy in the attack -- as far as he knows, three Imperial ships fly out of the Death Star and start attacking the Rebels, but there's no way to know it's Vader. It could be any one of the stormtroopers or an elite commando

The Death Star was destroyed. Everyone aboard was killed except Vader, who turned up days later to attack the Alliance. Since the Death Star was not evacuated, that means that the TIE pilot that was sent careening out of control was Vader.

PiettsHat said:

Vader tortured Leia on the Death Star and then helped play a part in the destruction of Leia' planet. He might not have given the order, but he most certainly played along and intimidated her during the proceedings. That alone is far worse than anything he ever does to Luke.

Going along with it isn't exactly helping. And Vader's action was more damming, because it almost cost them their last hope.

PiettsHat said:

You may love the idea of someone, but unless you've met them, you can't love the person. Otherwise, people who obsessively follow celebrity lives and watch interviews also love that person. It's an absurd concept.

Who says that they don't love the celebrity? You can love a celebrity, but not be in love with them or love them as a family member. Those who go beyond that are the ones who become stalkers and such.

As far as story, characters, and themes go, I find the PT is way, WAY more interesting and dynamic than the OT by it's very nature.
As far as actual execution, artistic skill, and movie going experience go, the OT is way, WAY superior to the PT.
I think part of what went against the PT was that because the story, characters, and themes were so much more complex and dynamic, it required a writer and director of far superior skill than what the OT required. Lucas had been so out of practice in both of those areas that he actually went the other way in terms of quality in these fields.
I'm hoping the ST will be top notch in story, characters and themes as well as execution, artistic skill and movie going experience. But if anything need be sacrificed, please don't let it be the quality of the movie going experience. The whole point of movies is to commune with your fellow humans, not to appreciate them at home by oneself.

I will totally agree with you that the PT story in theory is much more complex and IS the more interesting story if executed right.

I think the major problem is that...the set up was so complex that it required more than three hour and a half movies to tell the story properly - and starting from child Anakin just exacerbates the rushed nature of the remaining two movies.

Considering that we seem to be straying a bit off topic, I think I'll be bowing out of this conversation. But if you want to make a thread in the Classic Trilogy forum addressing this topic, I'll happily participate. Again, I just wanted to state that my problems with Leia's characterization are my own and I'm not saying you have to agree. I have difficulty relating to her, but if you find her relatable, that's fine. My issue with her is primarily that she is too unaffected by what goes on around her. Even if you're right and she is not tortured in ESB, that doesn't change the fact that she was tortured by her father in ANH (who subsequently participated in Tarkin's plan that destroyed her planet) while even in ESB, she was forced to see people she loves tortured. She comes out of this without the slightest sign of trauma or even disturbance while Luke getting his hand cut off and finding out about his father's identity is enough to make him go nearly catatonic. I'm not saying that Leia has to react the same way, but I would like to see a reaction -- anything. If you watched the scenes of Luke at the end of ESB in isolation -- without knowing what had happened to him before -- you would know that something terrible had happened to him based on his behavior (even if you weren't aware of what exactly it was). In ANH, I can't say the same thing for Leia and therein lies my problem with her.

I think the major problem is that...the set up was so complex that it required more than three hour and a half movies to tell the story properly - and starting from child Anakin just exacerbates the rushed nature of the remaining two movies.

I think Anakin having to leave his mother as a child was an important thing to focus on. If anything, I wished they had integrated the trauma of that into the main plot of TPM. Instead, it was like watching two different movies.

WOW! There are this many people who think the OT is better than the PT.

...

The PT is far better than the OT and it's nowhere near close. The OT is a simple set of movies. I've noticed that a lot(note that I didn't say all, so don't cry me a river about diction) of the OT crowd is composed of people who are just buckets of nostalgia that go around wearing rose-tinted glasses and, either through denial or actual inability, regard the OT as a better trilogy than the PT. Need proof; go look at the amount of likes those RLM videos have.

I wrote in another PT thread:

"The Prequels are far better than the Originals.

George Lucas started the saga with a trilogy that relied on overused themes and a cliche narrative and really grounded it with the Prequel Trilogy that deals with basic humanity.

Everyday, I'm amazed by how much the Prequels accurately depict real life and real society. One of a million examples in today's society would be how the U.N. has arguably turned a blind eye to Syrian atrocities just as the Republic turned a blind eye to Naboo's plight with the Trade Federation. Or how the League of Nations ignored countries during the rise of German fascism in the 1930's. The Prequels were so ambitious, and so flawless, in depicting how things in reality transpire.

The Prequels delve into humanity and society, into the lives of me, you, our choices, and our consequences. In the Prequels, we get to see nearly everything represented in humanity's history of conflict.

I could write a 10,000 paged essay on the Prequels and still be nowhere near completely detailing the magnificence and complexity of the Prequels. That's because of the Prequel's ability to depict issues and situations that have existed since the dawn of humanity.

Real life is not so easy as good rebels vs big, bad empire. The Prequels, like real life, deal with issues such as dirty politics, moral grayness, different points of view, private interests preceding public welfare, desire(both basic and complex), and the idea of taking a hard look at ourselves and our actions."

I'm not going to give a simpering "I like the Saga as a whole" (though I do ) answer. Nor am I going to sugarcoat or tone down my opinion by making some apologetic statement to the OT. One trilogy is clearly better than the other. That's not to say the OT isn't good: it's just not as good as the PT. Can't hold a candle to it.

Fellow PT fans seem to be either reserved in expressing their praise for the PT or are just drowned out by the masses.
@SlashMan, I wish I was there when that idiot professor(talk about unprofessional) was trying to denigrate TPM. I'd have mopped the floor with him, then have taken him outside, asked him "Now what was that about TPM?" and if he started pulling more crap, would pull him back and mentally tear him apart again. Rinse and repeat. That whole RLM garbage and their crowd don't have anything on me. Grown men aren't backed down by a group of idiots.

I'm also sick of the mud that's constantly being flung on George Lucas. And all those who think they would easily make a better TPM. I watched a Youtube video "What if Episode I was good?" and it was a huge pile of crap. But the like bar was pure green...

Thanks for the shoutout
@Komodo9Joe! I would have to agree, the PT is what I grew up with so I do have that soft spot for it over the OT. In terms of the story and complexity, let's be honest the majority of the discussions we have on here about characters motivation, right/wrong and philosophy are rooted in the PT. The OT is much more black and white. Not to mention the PT has much more emotional moments. For instance both Obi-Wan (OT) and Qui-Gon (PT) appear alive in one film, but who's death do you feel more? When Maul strikes down Qui-Gon you are yelling "No!" along with Obi-Wan. Do you feel more emotion when Anakin is left burning on the lava shores of Mustafar by his former best friend or when the suddenly-a-good-guy redeemed Darth Vader dies in the arms of his son? Whether you like it or not the PT gives us a deeper look into the culture, politics and emotion of the SW galaxy.

WOW! There are this many people who think the OT is better than the PT.

...

The PT is far better than the OT and it's nowhere near close. The OT is a simple set of movies. I've noticed that a lot(note that I didn't say all, so don't cry me a river about diction) of the OT crowd is composed of people who are just buckets of nostalgia that go around wearing rose-tinted glasses and, either through denial or actual inability, regard the OT as a better trilogy than the PT. Need proof; go look at the amount of likes those RLM videos have.

I wrote in another PT thread:

"The Prequels are far better than the Originals.

George Lucas started the saga with a trilogy that relied on overused themes and a cliche narrative and really grounded it with the Prequel Trilogy that deals with basic humanity.

Everyday, I'm amazed by how much the Prequels accurately depict real life and real society. One of a million examples in today's society would be how the U.N. has arguably turned a blind eye to Syrian atrocities just as the Republic turned a blind eye to Naboo's plight with the Trade Federation. Or how the League of Nations ignored countries during the rise of German fascism in the 1930's. The Prequels were so ambitious, and so flawless, in depicting how things in reality transpire.

The Prequels delve into humanity and society, into the lives of me, you, our choices, and our consequences. In the Prequels, we get to see nearly everything represented in humanity's history of conflict.

I could write a 10,000 paged essay on the Prequels and still be nowhere near completely detailing the magnificence and complexity of the Prequels. That's because of the Prequel's ability to depict issues and situations that have existed since the dawn of humanity.

Real life is not so easy as good rebels vs big, bad empire. The Prequels, like real life, deal with issues such as dirty politics, moral grayness, different points of view, private interests preceding public welfare, desire(both basic and complex), and the idea of taking a hard look at ourselves and our actions."

I'm not going to give a simpering "I like the Saga as a whole" (though I do ) answer. Nor am I going to sugarcoat or tone down my opinion by making some apologetic statement to the OT. One trilogy is clearly better than the other. That's not to say the OT isn't good: it's just not as good as the PT. Can't hold a candle to it.

Fellow PT fans seem to be either reserved in expressing their praise for the PT or are just drowned out by the masses.
@SlashMan, I wish I was there when that idiot professor(talk about unprofessional) was trying to denigrate TPM. I'd have mopped the floor with him, then have taken him outside, asked him "Now what was that about TPM?" and if he started pulling more crap, would pull him back and mentally tear him apart again. Rinse and repeat. That whole RLM garbage and their crowd don't have anything on me. Grown men aren't backed down by a group of idiots.

I'm also sick of the mud that's constantly being flung on George Lucas. And all those who think they would easily make a better TPM. I watched a Youtube video "What if Episode I was good?" and it was a huge pile of crap. But the like bar was pure green...

George Lucas started the saga with a trilogy that relied on overused themes and a cliche narrative and really grounded it with the Prequel Trilogy that deals with basic humanity.

ANH was a very simplistic film, with a 'cliched' nobody-hero storyline. What made Star Wars was that it was a new way of visualising (on film) a futuristic world - things were battered and used instead of the usual pristine, anti-septic versions previously depicted. The special effects were absolutely stunning for their day, and still stand up today imo; The Imperial cruiser looming overhead in the cinema...a real jaw-dropping moment. The characters/actors are engaging enough that the film works, it engages the audience and the audience goes along with the story. The final victory is, of course, the victory of humanity - over technology and over the inhumanity of the Empire.

By the end of ROTJ Luke is in a position to gratify his own desires. He can kill Vader and kill the Emperor (as far as he is concerned) but he realises that his real enemy is himself - the lesson he did not get in the Dagobah cave. That is a profound revelation to project into a popular, family adventure film. The rebels win against technology (again) with the help of faith (Luke's faith in the rebels is an aspect of his own actions, Lando's faith in Solo getting the shield down) - a victory again for humanity.

Everyday, I'm amazed by how much the Prequels accurately depict real life and real society.

I have to disagree. We have democracy represented by the Senate - a central power structure cloying power away from the periphery. The alternative to that singular model is the corporate power of the CIS pretending itself an alternative to the corrupt Republic. Reality, of course, is that 'representative' government is the Empire. There is no need to declare Empire (if you don't already know, there was no declaration of Empire within Rome - in fact Augustus' rule was - to all intents and purposes - simply a slightly shuffled form of Republican practice. there was no new office created and - to all intents and purposes - the Senate continued in its previous forms (kind of..)

A cackling hooded Emperor is not my idea of realistic. An ancient prophecy that must be fulfilled does not equate to humanity. A man who makes a choice under duress, loses everything he made that choice for because he made that choice and then.... carries on in the same vein for twenty some years....isn't a story I can buy

I prefer the OT because I think the films work better as movies. I don't believe that they are perfect, I don't even think they make a coherent whole. The PT movies have moments but, as movies I think their faults are too numerous for me to enjoy them. The characters on the whole don't engage me at all.

ANH was a very simplistic film, with a 'cliched' nobody-hero storyline.

I agree.

What made Star Wars was that it was a new way of visualising (on film) a futuristic world - things were battered and used instead of the usual pristine, anti-septic versions previously depicted. The special effects were absolutely stunning for their day, and still stand up today imo; The Imperial cruiser looming overhead in the cinema...a real jaw-dropping moment. The characters/actors are engaging enough that the film works, it engages the audience and the audience goes along with the story. The final victory is, of course, the victory of humanity - over technology and over the inhumanity of the Empire.

Nice set of opinions there but there is only one fact buried in the paragraph: the groundbreaking special effects. Let me counterpoint my own opinions, my own "jaw-dropping moments" as you put it: the fight on the Trade Federation bridge where Qui-Gon is hammering at the door to get to the treacherous Viceroy, the chiaroscuro of the scene where Dooku interrogates Obi-Wan--not only symbolizing ambiguity but the neurosis of each characters involved. Your final opinion is hardly definitive: the final victory could be construed as the victory of absolutism(the systematic vilification and abolition of an Empire), the victory of rebellions, regardless of intention, the victory of inhumanity itself in focusing on annihilation rather than reformation. Nevertheless, the point you make on victory certainly applies, although what the victory is of is subjective.

By the end of ROTJ Luke is in a position to gratify his own desires. He can kill Vader and kill the Emperor (as far as he is concerned) but he realises that his real enemy is himself - the lesson he did not get in the Dagobah cave. That is a profound revelation to project into a popular, family adventure film. The rebels win against technology (again) with the help of faith (Luke's faith in the rebels is an aspect of his own actions, Lando's faith in Solo getting the shield down) - a victory again for humanity.

This is a pretty interesting take and you do a good job in explaining it. However, your first sentence, "in a position to gratify his own desires," strikes against the altruism of the Jedi. I think the greater theme here is recognizing an evil and acting against it for the common good rather than basing it on one's "own desires."

I have to disagree. We have democracy represented by the Senate - a central power structure cloying power away from the periphery. The alternative to that singular model is the corporate power of the CIS pretending itself an alternative to the corrupt Republic. Reality, of course, is that 'representative' government is the Empire. There is no need to declare Empire (if you don't already know, there was no declaration of Empire within Rome - in fact Augustus' rule was - to all intents and purposes - simply a slightly shuffled form of Republican practice. there was no new office created and - to all intents and purposes - the Senate continued in its previous forms (kind of..)

Read your first line. Doesn't that sound familiar with the politics of the PT? Palpatine reflects many despots throughout history and how they, radically, appeal towards a "central power structure." The CIS is just one of many alternatives; governments such as oligarchies in Sparta, Greece, dictatorships throughout the Middle East, and communist structures in Asia are all alternatives to democracy.

I would brush up on your Roman history. The Senate during the times of the Roman Empire was hardly given any autocracy. Augustus' primus inter pares belied the state of affairs, in which he was a dictator in all but name. Because of this, the emperor Trajan would later be lauded by the Senate as he was the one who restored the Senate's lost auctoritas. One of the key things about the Roman Republic was its inefficiency in administering the people's wishes. It was this truth that allowed Caesar to rouse the people in supporting his dictatorship much as Palpatine appealed to the people by his promise to uphold the public welfare that led to the formation of such institutions.

A cackling hooded Emperor is not my idea of realistic. An ancient prophecy that must be fulfilled does not equate to humanity. A man who makes a choice under duress, loses everything he made that choice for because he made that choice and then.... carries on in the same vein for twenty some years....isn't a story I can buy

*Ahem* which trilogy was it again that introduced the Emperor?

I beg to differ on the correlation of the prophecy, which is deep-rooted in Christianity. I don't think anyone will argue the tremendous effects Christianity and the Bible has on Western culture. Both Anakin Skywalker's virgin birth and the "messiah" figure articulated in the Chosen One's prophecy can be found in figures on various religions, from Christian orthodox to Muslism fundamentalism.

I prefer the OT because I think the films work better as movies. I don't believe that they are perfect, I don't even think they make a coherent whole. The PT movies have moments but, as movies I think their faults are too numerous for me to enjoy them. The characters on the whole don't engage me at all.

Y'know, I really like how you phrase these two sentences: you clearly and succinctly state your movie-going experience. You also adroitly mention the imperfection of the OT, which certainly makes your viewpoint sound credible and pleasant. I detect a bit of bias against the PT but that's fine. The only part that surprised me was the engagement bit, as the PT characters seem to deal more with problems that you and I would face rather than the fantastical problems faced by the OT cast.

Nice set of opinions there but there is only one fact buried in the paragraph: the groundbreaking special effects.

It is all opinion. As for the rest of the response; I wasn't aiming at comparing the OT with the PT but simply pointing out why Star Wars worked. You may find this a surprising revelation but...if ANH had not grabbed its audience there would have been no PT (or TESB or ROTJ). I was following on from ANH being a simplistic film - the corollary of what I was saying...more complex does not necessarily equate to better. ANH was a simplistic story but groundbreaking, in many ways, and with the right 'chemistry' to engage its audience.

This is a pretty interesting take and you do a good job in explaining it. However, your first sentence, "in a position to gratify his own desires," strikes against the altruism of the Jedi. I think the greater theme here is recognizing an evil and acting against it for the common good rather than basing it on one's "own desires."

I'm not sure what you are 'disgreeing' about. His anger and rage were his giving in to his emotions, his own desires. Vader and the Emperor were evil (in a very superficial reading) so his striking down either of them would have been for the common good....it is that he recognised that the true evil was within himself. He recognises that striking Vader down with hatred and anger is evil. It is his learning that that prompts him to declare himself then a Jedi.

I have to disagree. We have democracy represented by the Senate - a central power structure cloying power away from the periphery. The alternative to that singular model is the corporate power of the CIS pretending itself an alternative to the corrupt Republic. Reality, of course, is that 'representative' government is the Empire. There is no need to declare Empire (if you don't already know, there was no declaration of Empire within Rome - in fact Augustus' rule was - to all intents and purposes - simply a slightly shuffled form of Republican practice. there was no new office created and - to all intents and purposes - the Senate continued in its previous forms (kind of..)

Read your first line. Doesn't that sound familiar with the politics of the PT?

I would hope so. I was describing the politics of thePT. My point was that....our centralised power structures as democracy are a simplistic and monolithic ideal; they already act and function as the machinery of empire.

The CIS is just one of many alternatives; governments such as oligarchies in Sparta, Greece, dictatorships throughout the Middle East, and communist structures in Asia are all alternatives to democracy.

Here you validate my point. A centralised, power/money syphoning 'representative' structure = democracy. There is no notion within the movies that those wishing to decentralise power away from the Republic centre might be a more democratic alternative. It is a very simplified western/American notion. Here is 'good' 'democracy' vs evil Emperor. Or, to put it another way. At no point is the notion that the centralised and centralising structure might itself be the problem.

I would brush up on your Roman history. The Senate during the times of the Roman Empire was hardly given any autocracy. Augustus' primus inter pares belied the state of affairs, in which he a dictator in all but name.

As I said... to all intents and purposes. Augustus was granted his powers and honours by the Senate. realitistically he was given those honours and powers as a compromise which brought peace to Rome's Imperium, in a deal which reverted back to the Senate what they really desired after all - the wealth, privilege, heritability and auctoritas of Senatorial office while giving power to the militarily powerful Augustus. The point being there was no announcement of a new structure; SPQR was still called SPQR. Augustus was simply given honours and powers through existing offices and the language of the Republic. An Empire does not become an Empire because it is declared such, an Empire becomes an Empire because of where power actually resides.

One of the key things about the Roman Republic was its inefficiency in administering the people's wishes. It was this truth that allowed Caesar to rouse the people in supporting his dictatorship much as Palpatine appealed to the people by his promise to uphold the public welfare that led to the formation of such institutions.

The Senate was nevera representative body for anybody but...the Senate. It was something akin to the House of Lords. Once a Senator, always a Senator - and Senatorial power resided within a limited number of families. The Republic wasn't 'inefficient' in administering to the people's wishes, it was outright hostile - or rather the Senate was hostile - to any attempt at political reforms aimed at representation of the people. That is what the Late Roman Republic is all about - attempts at reform and the reactionary military Junta of the Senate stamping it out. Caesar brought about very real reforms to help ordinary Roman citizens (the most important being debt relief) and seemed unsure about how best to maintain political reform within Rome...anyway, enough. I don't want to get into a history lesson but...please don't ask me to brush up on Roman history and...don't confuse Palpatine with Caesar.

Both Anakin Skywalker's virgin birth and the "messiah" figure articulated in the Chosen One's prophecy ...

.. the PT characters seem to deal more with problems that you and I would face rather than the fantastical problems faced by the OT cast.

In all seriousness, all I was trying to point out was that; I don't think a film being more complex necessarily equates to it being a better film, and I don't think that either trilogy is more 'realistic' or less 'fantastical' than the other.

It is all opinion. As for the rest of the response; I wasn't aiming at comparing the OT with the PT but simply pointing out why Star Wars worked. You may find this a surprising revelation but...if ANH had not grabbed its audience there would have been no PT (or TESB or ROTJ). I was following on from ANH being a simplistic film - the corollary of what I was saying...more complex does not necessarily equate to better. ANH was a simplistic story but groundbreaking, in many ways, and with the right 'chemistry' to engage its audience.

Not all of it. Among your deluge of opinions was a fact: ANH was groundbreaking.

If your objective was to point out why Star Wars worked, then it was irrelevant to reply to my post because you do not understand what I was stating. That's all there is to this point: thank you for clarifying that you misunderstood.

I'm not sure what you are 'disgreeing' about. His anger and rage were his giving in to his emotions, his own desires. Vader and the Emperor were evil (in a very superficial reading) so his striking down either of them would have been for the common good....it is that he recognised that the true evil was within himself. He recognises that striking Vader down with hatred and anger is evil. It is his learning that that prompts him to declare himself then a Jedi.

More opinions and generalizations. And what I am disagreeing with is your opinion which I clearly expressed in my last reply.

I would hope so. I was describing the politics of thePT. My point was that....our centralised power structures as democracy are a simplistic and monolithic ideal; they already act and function as the machinery of empire.

...which is shown throughout history. Thank you for the acknowlegdement.

Here you validate my point. A centralised, power/money syphoning 'representative' structure = democracy. There is no notion within the movies that those wishing to decentralise power away from the Republic centre might be a more democratic alternative. It is a very simplified western/American notion. Here is 'good' 'democracy' vs evil Emperor. Or, to put it another way. At no point is the notion that the centralised and centralising structure might itself be the problem.

Er, no. Because you don't have a point. You responded to my post with "I disagree" but you clearly don't understand to what you're disagreeing to, i.e. what I was trying to say. Your sentences are tremendously out of scope of what I was talking about: I have never stated that the centralizing structure is itself the problem or that the movies expanded different alternatives.

As I said... to all intents and purposes. Augustus was granted his powers and honours by the Senate. realitistically he was given those honours and powers as a compromise which brought peace to Rome's Imperium, in a deal which reverted back to the Senate what they really desired after all - the wealth, privilege, heritability and auctoritas of Senatorial office while giving power to the militarily powerful Augustus. The point being there was no announcement of a new structure; SPQR was still called SPQR. Augustus was simply given honours and powers through existing offices and the language of the Republic. An Empire does not become an Empire because it is declared such, an Empire becomes an Empire because of where power actually resides.

I don't think you know what imperium means: imperium is Latin for power, often applying to an individual. Your last sentence proves my point of Palpatine's rise being similar to the fall of the Roman Republic.

Once a Senator, always a Senator - and Senatorial power resided within a limited number of families. The Republic wasn't 'inefficient' in administering to the people's wishes, it was outright hostile - or rather the Senate was hostile - to any attempt at political reforms aimed at representation of the people. That is what the Late Roman Republic is all about - attempts at reform and the reactionary military Junta of the Senate stamping it out. I don't want to get into a history lesson but...please don't ask me to brush up on Roman history and...don't confuse Palpatine with Caesar.

No, you do need to brush up on Roman history and your response is evident of it. Senators were not always Senators: they were appointed by the consul and later the censors and had term limits stated in the cursus honorum. And hostility is a form of inefficiency which is a general word I used to describe the Senate. Your conclusion of the Late Roman Republic is woefully incorrect: the Senate didn't have an army but sided with powerful individuals who did which is one of the reasons for the collapse of the Republic. Furthermore, reform wasn't the priority at the time; the results were brought about by ambitious men such as Pompey Magnus and Julius Caesar's conflict with each other. The Late Roman Republic is an example of a weakening Senate that can again be seen in the PT.

The OT. But it was the PT that introduced us to a pantomime villain, cackling Emperor.

Wrong again. Go watch the Emperor's introduction scene in ROTJ that shows him cackling very clearly.

So before this degenerates into a flame war, let's all remember that everyone's entitled to his or her own opinion - and when it comes down to OT vs PT, it's only ever going to be opinion, not fact, and there's not ever going to be anything even approaching what could be called 'proof'.

As Darth Nub has said it is all opinion, I was simply trying to point out that. I'm sorry that I prefer the OT over the PT and that that offends you so much. I was only responding to the justifications you put forward as why the PT is far better and "its nowhere near close" and explaining why I don't think they are necessarily true. You gave as part of that reasoning that the OT relied upon "cliched narrative" and was a "simple set of movies" - and I tried to point out that more complex is not necessarily the same as better.

You then argued that the PT "deals with basic humanity", so I offered the fact that the outcomes of the OT movies were all reliant upon the humanity of the characters.

You suggested that the PT reflected real life, but I was trying to show that the same dichotomy exists as within the OT - a simplistic good vs bad, just a slightly different setting for that dichotomy (though by the end of ROTS even that is tied together).

You argued that the situations that the characters face in the PT are more like those we normal folk face; I don't know anybody who has had to face the prospect of being born 'of the Force' to a virgin mother who is expected to bring peace and balance to the galaxy.

I wasn't arguing the OT as superior to the PT, I was trying to point out that the reasons you gave as to why the PT was better don't stand up to inspection. I was trying to show that, much as you argue otherwise, neither set of films is more or less fantastical than the other (that is an aspect of the narrative style of their fantasy/sci-fi genre) or that one set of movies is more "grounded in humanity" than the other.

Or...as I indicated about my own preference; might it be that you prefer the PT for personal reasons? That much as you might look for reasons as to why, it comes down to simple preference; they just worked better for you?

Oh, and one other point. The idea that only the OT-ers are subject to nostalgia is a false one. If you were brought up on the PT you are as likely to suffer the same.

You argued that the situations that the characters face in the PT are more like those we normal folk face; I don't know anybody who has had to face the prospect of being born 'of the Force' to a virgin mother who is expected to bring peace and balance to the galaxy.

It's more of an allegory, though, isn't it? I'm pretty sure, adopting the same standard, I can't really relate to a guy who flies around space in a grey hamburger with a 7-foot shaggy dog as a co-pilot, but somehow, it works.

You argued that the situations that the characters face in the PT are more like those we normal folk face; I don't know anybody who has had to face the prospect of being born 'of the Force' to a virgin mother who is expected to bring peace and balance to the galaxy.

It's more of an allegory, though, isn't it? I'm pretty sure, adopting the same standard, I can't really relate to a guy who flies around space in a grey hamburger with a 7-foot shaggy dog as a co-pilot, but somehow, it works.

Wouldn't disagree. If you read my post you would understand that I'm saying that the PT is no more realistic in its representations/storylines than the OT, not that the OT is more so.

Stop filibustering. Firstly, Darth Nub is incorrect in saying it's all opinion as are you: ANH was groundbreaking. So stop trying to fall back on "it's all opinion" when this is the third time I've refuted it. Your second statement defies your position: you argue(and unconvincingly at that) that complexity does not equate to being better but then you go on to argue the complexity of the PT(you shouldn't need to if complexity is an irrelevant point).

Thirdly, I like how you play psychic and state a whole list of thoughts I supposedly have: that I'm offended by those who like the OT, that I'm under the impression you are arguing about the OT being better than the PT, that I prefer the PT for personal reasons, and that I claim only OT-ers are the only subjects to nostalgia. Dead wrong on all counts.

Now, as for the bulk of your reply:

You then argued that the PT "deals with basic humanity", so I offered the fact that the outcomes of the OT movies were all reliant upon the humanity of the characters.

... Thank you for providing definitive proof that you're just floundering now. For the first two posts, and to your acquiesce, we each concluded that these were opinions and that's it. Now, you're trying to go back on your own "opinion" rebuttal and start passing off what you admitted as opinion as fact. I, for instance, do not share your sentiment(if such is perceived correctly from a vague statement) which again goes back to the established ground that we had covered posts back: that it's opinion. To pass your statement as fact would go against the heart of your argument so I conclude you do not have one. You are merely replying to my posts with improvisational sentences that defy your own platform.

You argued that the situations that the characters face in the PT are more like those we normal folk face; I don't know anybody who has had to face the prospect of being born 'of the Force' to a virgin mother who is expected to bring peace and balance to the galaxy.

What!? You cherry pick an example that I used to prove my point about the PT containing ideas deep-rooted in history, not my point about the situations faced in the PT, and then try to use it to debunk a separate point I made. Your second statement is plain anecdotal and/or sarcastic : the Force does not exist in real life. But you completely missed the essence of the idea: ideas cemented into religion about messiah figures about virgin births about supernatural beings birthed into apocalyptic times. As I have already stated in my last posts: the Force and the virgin conception of Anakin are allegorical ideas that very much permeate throughout modern theology. But not only do you completely miss, scratch that, ignore this(because I have stated it before), you use an example under Point B and state that it doesn't support Point A: of course not, that's why it wasn't under Point A...

I was trying to point out that the reasons you gave as to why the PT was better don't stand up to inspection. I was trying to show that, much as you argue otherwise, neither set of films is more or less fantastical than the other (that is an aspect of the narrative style of their fantasy/sci-fi genre) or that one set of movies is more "grounded in humanity" than the other.

Sure... after I dismantle your attempt to bring up the Roman Republic and Empire( of which you have several misconception and/or simply wrong facts about). After I completely corner you on your Emperor point and how the "fantastical" Emperor, through your own admission, is introduced in the OT rather than the PT(did you check ROTJ, get back to me on if you see him cackling). After you go against your "opinion" basis and after you try to dishonestly pass off an example I made under a different point I made.

Yeah, if this was a formal debate, your "negation" wouldn't even want to bring up any voter issues during the rebuttal. I mean, what would the voter issues possibly be after all your dropped points on the Roman Republic, the Emperor, and the shoddy refutations that are A) self-defeating or B) disingenuous?

Thirdly, I like how you play psychic and state a whole list of thoughts I supposedly have: that I'm offended by those who like the OT, that I'm under the impression you are arguing about the OT being better than the PT, that I prefer the PT for personal reasons, and that I claim only OT-ers are the only subjects to nostalgia. Dead wrong on all counts.

Well...your reply here has hardly disavowed me of the idea that you are offended by my preference of the OT.

" I've noticed that a lot(note that I didn't say all, so don't cry me a river about diction) of the OT crowd is composed of people who are just buckets of nostalgia that go around wearing rose-tinted glasses and, either through denial or actual inability, regard the OT as a better trilogy than the PT."

As for the rest...I can't be bothered. We seem to be passing each other by...what can you do?

For instance you said; "Your sentences are tremendously out of scope of what I was talking about: I have never stated that the centralizing structure is itself the problem or that the movies expanded different alternatives."

....my point was that the movies don't expand beyond a simplistic ideal any more than the OT does - there is still a good (democracy as centralised authority) vs evil (nasty dictator man). I was - in other words - suggesting that the PT was not, perhaps, as complex as on the surface they may appear (as opposed to your comment that I argued the complexity of the PT...which i did not).

As for the reference to the Romans, my point was; there was no announcement of an Empire. We call the Empire the Empire to differentiate the political situation in an historical perspective. I was referencing the simplistic idea that an Empire would exist only because it was announced.

No Imperium is not simply the Latin for power. It gained much more meaning,;it represented the rightful power, handed down from the gods of the Romans over the conquered, and is where we get the word Empire from (Imperium Romanus)

You are right. The PT is objectively a better set of movies. I bow to your superior knowledge and widom. Please forgive my audacity in opposing your word.

Stop filibustering. Firstly, Darth Nub is incorrect in saying it's all opinion as are you: ANH was groundbreaking. So stop trying to fall back on "it's all opinion" when this is the third time I've refuted it.

Groundbreaking is one thing. It was groundbreaking because of the effects, the editing, the pacing and what it would go on to inspire in Hollywood. That is a fact. Saying the film is superior because you think it is a better film, not from a technical standpoint, but from a storytelling standpoint, is still an opinion. Just like one person saying on TESB was good, because Lucas didn't do much on that one. Or only ANH and TESB were good, the rest were crap because of Lucas. Or that TPM sucked because of Jar Jar.

You argued that the situations that the characters face in the PT are more like those we normal folk face; I don't know anybody who has had to face the prospect of being born 'of the Force' to a virgin mother who is expected to bring peace and balance to the galaxy.

It's more of an allegory, though, isn't it? I'm pretty sure, adopting the same standard, I can't really relate to a guy who flies around space in a grey hamburger with a 7-foot shaggy dog as a co-pilot, but somehow, it works.

Wouldn't disagree. If you read my post you would understand that I'm saying that the PT is no more realistic in its representations/storylines than the OT, not that the OT is more so.

I don't require realism. And Star Wars is not a "realistic" work of art.

On the other hand, you did earlier write...

A cackling hooded Emperor is not my idea of realistic. An ancient prophecy that must be fulfilled does not equate to humanity. A man who makes a choice under duress, loses everything he made that choice for because he made that choice and then.... carries on in the same vein for twenty some years....isn't a story I can buy

These sentiments, and others, imply a belief, on your part, that the OT is inherently more "realistic" (and "more realistic" = "better") than the PT; and even that the OT was actually better off before the PT was made. I therefore took your latter remarks in the context of your earlier ones and assumed you were attempting to coherently outline a disdain for the PT rooted in your dislike of -- for want of a better description -- perceived abstraction / symbolism that is too enlarged and which you personally cannot relate to or see beyond. Unlike your attitude toward the OT, which apparently is one of near-total acceptance, no matter what extremes the films throw out, you can't abide the PT because, in its basic plot elements and visuals, it's too grandiose, ridiculous, or remote, in your opinion. So I don't think you're really being honest above. You didn't -- and still don't -- appear to be saying that the PT and the OT are equal (your wording where you *attempt* to say that: "not that the OT is more so"). On the contrary, based on your words and sentiments in your last few posts, you practically deify the OT, while abhorring the PT and dismissing it, or certain of its plot features, with something close to blunt sarcasm.

Out of the two of us, I appear to be the one that simpers an acceptance of all six films, seeing them as equally worthy, telling one grand, unified story, with an intricate visual language and Protean tonality that are both subtle and at least vaguely comprehensible. In other words, I find the complete arc of the films -- and they have many arcs -- to be satisfying and inspiring. I see the similarities *and* the differences between the films and I embrace them. I believe the main artist, George Lucas, put those contrasts and connections there on purpose, for the most part, and the rest emerge organically, as they will, some combination of happenstance (God/serendipity) and sublimated virtuosity (man-made ingenuity).

You and your opponent, Komodo9Joe, have both raised some valid points about the trilogies, I think, but I also think you are both hung up on the surface: surface ideas, surface themes. For instance, you had a bit of a crossfire over the definition of "democracy", or what constitutes an "empire", without either of you remotely considering the possibility -- or so it seems -- that Star Wars is a visual story, first and foremost, and a rather esoteric, paradoxic one at that. The Senate which you see as Lucas' expression of the "monolithic" ideal of democracy, for instance, is clearly depicted as a vortex structure (interior) -- a decaying obloidal mass devouring itself endlessly. The opening crawl of TPM, so despised by fanboys with a push-button hatred of "politics", for instance, is keener to signify the cosmological nature of this conflict: "While the Congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events" (one obvious (linked) meaning: chains > linkage > bondage > slavery) ... the word "endlessly" alluding to the fact that the Senate is in perpetual contradiction and doomed to thwart itself forever. "Man is born free yet everywhere he is in chains". The Republic is no freer and no less a mass of contradictions than Anakin, its human avatar.

Lucas clearly plays -- *cough* -- endlessly ... with words and visuals. The big open secret of the PT is that "democracy" is a toxic, meaningless word. That's why it's shoved into the mouth of an un-thinking Obi-Wan confronting Anakin, and baiting him to an apocalyptic duel, in the prequel trilogy's final show-stopping, scenery-wrecking act: "My allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy!" Contrast it with Yoda's calm paean to nature in TESB: "For my ally is the Force and a powerful ally it is!" See the difference? The word "democracy" is a wrecking ball used to shut down all critical thought. It notably crops up in a stuffy scene in AOTC (right before Obi-Wan emerges at the location of the "missing planet" Kamino). "The day we stop believing democracy can work is the day we lose it." Anakin is the only character with a true conscience in the film -- the knock-down revelation: the young Darth Vader is more prepossessed than characters many years or political semesters his senior -- and he is immediately silenced ("Shutting up, sir") by his romantic ideal. As the would-be reasonable, female authority figure comically announces, "Perfect. It's settled, then", the film cuts to Obi-Wan's dagger-like craft powerfully slicing through the immense void (untapped potential) of space. These characters "settle" things through a different kind of violence: the tyranny of etiquette / protocol / forced manners. And they believe they're righteous. Star Wars is not just grand adventure, but grand farce.

"Democracy" is a "god" word that bombs the human brain.

Lucas seems to think so:

GEORGE LUCAS: The legal system, the financial system, the political system, they're all based on "winner, take all". That's not a good society, that's not a good culture. That's a culture that is built out of a caveman mentality where the guy with the biggest hammer wins. That's not a good society.

CHARLIE ROSE: And you want to see a society that is defined -- how? By everybody comes out...

GEORGE LUCAS: By compassion. By saying, "We care about everybody in our society and what we wanna do what's best for everybody in the society. And we wanna build the best society where everybody gets the best possible life they can possibly have."

CHARLIE ROSE: And would you call this "democracy"? Would you call this "socialism"? Would you call this some other "-ism" that we don't have a name for?

GEORGE LUCAS: I'd call it common sense.

The whole of Star Wars, in a way, is a cautionary tale about the dangers and inadequacies of labels --> and of not judging by appearances / first impressions.

Indeed, of seeing beyond the immediate artifacts of a situation, to what is really going on --> of practical solutions to real problems.

With imagination, toleration, and self-acceptance as the ultimate mediators.